The gay couples' taxes help protect the bakery; Shouldnt the be allowed to shop in it

[bucs90]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

 

[bucs90]

I mean, if that gay couple went to City Hall and said "Bubba Joe's Bakery" refused to sell us a cake, for the sole reason that we are gay; But, we pay the taxes that funds the police that patrol that shopping center at night, and the fire department that would rush to save the business if a kitchen fire broke out.

We'd like to have a refund of our tax money percentage that goes to serve THAT bakery please.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The State of Oregon believes you are correct, which is why they decided that good old Melissa broke the law and now has to pay up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

It has nothing to do with paying taxes.

It has to do with the fact that public accommodations laws are both constitutional and appropriate; where one cannot justify disobeying a just and valid law ‘because of his religion.’

 

[bucs90]

Well good for Oregon.

I mean, I'd never support saying they could force the baker to decorate a cake in a vulgar way. There are actually laws about that here in SC saying you cannot display anything that is "vulgar, pornographic or in poor taste with the standards of society" and the State cannot force you to do so on a cake.

But, if I pay taxes that protects a business, and I walk-in to that business requesting the standard service offered, and I cause no problems, and they refuse to serve me simply because of something I do or believe in that has NO AFFECT on them? Oh hell no. They gotta pay up. OR, stop accepting public tax funded service from the government .

 

[bucs90]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

It has nothing to do with paying taxes.

It has to do with the fact that public accommodations laws are both constitutional and appropriate; where one cannot justify disobeying a just and valid law ‘because of his religion.’

Well, lets use a screen printing shop for example.

If a guy walked in and said "I want 50 red t-shirts with the Nazi logo on the front", I'd support 100% the owner saying no.

But a gay couple wanting to buy a standard cake for their wedding? Ridiculous. That baker is obligated to serve the customer.

 

[Katzndogz]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

Of course they should be able to buy a three layer chocolate cake. Right out of the case, like anyone else. What they should not be able to do is compel the baker to attend their wedding with a wedding cake conveying the message that the bakery condones same sex marriage. There is no message in a three layer chocolate cake.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

It has nothing to do with paying taxes.

It has to do with the fact that public accommodations laws are both constitutional and appropriate; where one cannot justify disobeying a just and valid law ‘because of his religion.’

Well, lets use a screen printing shop for example.

If a guy walked in and said "I want 50 red t-shirts with the Nazi logo on the front", I'd support 100% the owner saying no.

But a gay couple wanting to buy a standard cake for their wedding? Ridiculous. That baker is obligated to serve the customer.

Print the shirts, that's your job.

 

[Katzndogz]

Business people, especially those in food service, always extend services to special favored customers that aren't available to the public. Christians have got to learn how to do it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Business people, especially those in food service, always extend services to special favored customers that aren't available to the public. Christians have got to learn how to do it.

Cheating, the Christian way right? No Commandments being broken there eh?

 

[bucs90]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

Of course they should be able to buy a three layer chocolate cake. Right out of the case, like anyone else. What they should not be able to do is compel the baker to attend their wedding with a wedding cake conveying the message that the bakery condones same sex marriage. There is no message in a three layer chocolate cake.

Ah, yes, well that's a bit different. I actually agree. The baker should not be forced to attend any event he is uncomfortable with.

If an atheist baker says he does not want to cater a wedding in a church, he should not be forced too. I agree with you on this one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

Protect it from what?

 

[Sunshine]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

And taxes protect the pharmacist, so shouldn't a pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong be forced to dispense the pills?

 

[bucs90]

It has nothing to do with paying taxes.

It has to do with the fact that public accommodations laws are both constitutional and appropriate; where one cannot justify disobeying a just and valid law ‘because of his religion.’

Well, lets use a screen printing shop for example.

If a guy walked in and said "I want 50 red t-shirts with the Nazi logo on the front", I'd support 100% the owner saying no.

But a gay couple wanting to buy a standard cake for their wedding? Ridiculous. That baker is obligated to serve the customer.

Print the shirts, that's your job.

No, its not. Not if the depicted image is highly vulgar or offensive by normal societal standards. That's actually written into SC law. I bet most states have that in their law.

 

[Katzndogz]

Business people, especially those in food service, always extend services to special favored customers that aren't available to the public. Christians have got to learn how to do it.

Cheating, the Christian way right? No Commandments being broken there eh?

That's not cheating. If they are being cheated, what are they being cheated out of? The right to someone else's talent and labor?

 

[bucs90]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

And taxes protect the pharmacist, so shouldn't a pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong be forced to dispense the pills?

I'd say yes. If the store is selling them, and the person has money for it, then they should sell it. The person doesn't have to work at that pharmacy.

But, if a person owns a private pharmacy, should they be FORCED to carry in stock birth control pills? No. Same as if they decided not to have Pepsi in their store.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, lets use a screen printing shop for example.

If a guy walked in and said "I want 50 red t-shirts with the Nazi logo on the front", I'd support 100% the owner saying no.

But a gay couple wanting to buy a standard cake for their wedding? Ridiculous. That baker is obligated to serve the customer.

Print the shirts, that's your job.

No, its not. Not if the depicted image is highly vulgar or offensive by normal societal standards. That's actually written into SC law. I bet most states have that in their law.

They likely do, and it's also wrong. A Muslim who can't print a hot girl in a bikini shouldn't open a T-shirt shop.

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, lets use a screen printing shop for example.

If a guy walked in and said "I want 50 red t-shirts with the Nazi logo on the front", I'd support 100% the owner saying no.

But a gay couple wanting to buy a standard cake for their wedding? Ridiculous. That baker is obligated to serve the customer.

Print the shirts, that's your job.

No, its not. Not if the depicted image is highly vulgar or offensive by normal societal standards. That's actually written into SC law. I bet most states have that in their law.

Take some child porn down to your CVS and ask them to develop the photos. Tell them to do their job.

 

[Stephanie]

still whining over a cake

twisted screwed up priorities and logic because they pay taxes...

A burglar probably pays taxes too so he should be allowed to steal everything in your home

good gawd, you people can whine on and on and on over the dumbest things

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The so-called bakery owned by the religious person who doesn't like gay people......is protected by local and state police and fire departments. Paid for by all the taxpayers.

So, that gay couple pays taxes, that in part go to the benefit of that bakery.

So, when that gay couple walks in and says "We'd like to buy a 3 layer chocolate cake please", and a straight couple walks in requesting the same type cake, and both couples are taxpayers, and the bakery benefits from police and fire protection funded in part by both couples' tax money............how can that baker refuse to service one couple with the SAME product as the other?

And taxes protect the pharmacist, so shouldn't a pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong be forced to dispense the pills?

I'd say yes. If the store is selling them, and the person has money for it, then they should sell it. The person doesn't have to work at that pharmacy.

But, if a person owns a private pharmacy, should they be FORCED to carry in stock birth control pills? No. Same as if they decided not to have Pepsi in their store.

Pepsi is not a healthcare need. If they oppose Viagra I really don't care either, nor something that really only black men or Jews take. They sell drugs not religion.